Response to my detractors: Why ad hominem?

John,
Why do almost all your answers contain ad Hominem responses?
You have a number of people who have repeatedly explained why the study is poor, and why your conclusions can not be reasonably be obtained from them – yet, you consistently skip acknowledging any criticism and make irrelevant appeals without ever providing a solid answer?
Are you deliberately ignoring criticism?

Hue

Dear Hue,

You know, it always starts out the same way. You guys say, “oh there’s no evidence for homeopathy. Homeopathy is a scam, it’s crap, it’s a placebo, it doesn’t work, you’re a horrible person. Show me one peer reviewed trial in a respected medical journal . . and you can’t do it.”

Then when I do, its always, “oh this is a poor study.” Really? Where’s your double blind RCT that proves its a placebo? And what’s a placebo? You can’t even form a reasonable question about it. isn’t the first question whether or not these substances have biologial effects? No, you’re too busy flinging ad hominems to ask ad rem questions.

You’re too busy making up your own answers.

What happened to the “no evidence” charge? Now it’s gone from “no evidence” to “bad evdience.” You can’t even get your terms straight much less explainhowit is that despite your ongoing resitance to it, it’s use is becoming widespread. The Cubans used it to stop a mass epidemic, people line up for it by the hundreds in India, it’s used to treat malaria an AIDS in Africa, and do you really think MD Anderson is the first to use it to treat cancer?

Wrong, Einstein!

It’s been used for over a century to treat cancer by people who haven’t bought into the line of poison you push. Can you tell us what the survival rate is for chemotherapy? Did you hear Michelle Bachman complain about Rick Perry’s use of some phony “cancer vaccine?”

Where was the testing for that, Governor Perry?

Have you seen or read what Avastin does does to people? Where were the tests for that, PZ Myers?

Did you know that Pfizer, the world’s largest mfg. of phamaceuticals has been repeatedly convicted of fraud, bribery and racketeering for pushing untested drugs that killed countless people? And you’re crying to me about what you want to believe is a poor study that supports the use of an economical and amazingly effective medicine that competes with the $100,000 a pop crap you buy?

What is wrong with Hue, Edzard Ernst?

It’s very simple why you perceive almost all of my answers to contain ad hominems. The reason for this is because it’s an ad hominem argument to begin with. You’re not at a level of reasoning yet to implement ad rem, arguments to the point.

Allow me to make the study you’re referring to an illustration.

You say a number of people have explained why the study is poor. This isn’t necessarily true. Simply stating it to be so isn’t proof of it. You do nothing more than reference your own stupid opinion.

Dismissing the evidence on the basis of an anonymous opinion that simply says it’s poor, is not evidence that it’s poor. That’s an ad hominem argument. And this is typical of thinking that disguises itself as “skepticism.” It’s 99% pervasive among the skeptic “community.. It’s necessary to hold the opinions you hold.

In the scientific analysis, ad hominem is the ONLY argument left against homeopathy, and after the evidence for homeoapthy has been presented, ad hominem is the ONLY response left. I have never heard ANYONE ever apply global standards about the use of ad hominem in the discussion of this subject. If you read through the comments I get here, even though I now weed out the completely ad hominem, most of them, every comment against homeopathy ALWAYS contains a tint of it, and I’ve had people write some incredibly mean things to me. I’ve been called a murderer, a con man, a dupe, a fool, a fraud, a snakeoil salesman, etc.

Randi says what I am doing is criminal. He has publicly called me “this idiot Benneth . .” while complaining about one of my videos. Ad hominem is all I GET from the anti homeopathy crowd, even arguments that appear as ad rem are always tinged with the “stupid crazy liar” motif. Yet I have NEVER heard any of you defenders of polite discussion ever stand up and say to your own, “hey, that’s ad hominem,” because as soon as you do, the delusion you’re harboring evaporates. Ad hominem is what keeps your delusion that homeopathy isn’t real, intact in your mind. As soon as you see the ad hominem in your argument, it falls apart.

The only way for the uninformed to engage in a discussion of a subject which they have only putative awareness of is to simply brand themselves “skeptics” and “critical thinkers” and start flinging insults.

These people, for the same reason, are ALWAYS ATHEISTS. They always have to be labelled something in their own minds in order to participate, and the only way to talk about the subject is through ad hominem, to turn it into a character assassination of the reporter. Its a bad comment on atheism. But God lets it pass, because God prefers atheists.

You don’t seem to realize that top material scientists have destroyed the arguments against homeopathy and the amnesia of water. Read the work of Rustum Roy, read who he is and who he has worked with in the study of homeopathy.

I have repeatedly asked critics and crybabies, like yourself, to give me the global standards for these studies they are criticizing and NO ONE, in the hundreds of responses, has ever been able to do it, even though global standards exist, not only for science experimentation in general, not only for medical studies in general, but for studies of the action of the homeopathic substances in question . . high dilutes . . in particular.

Witt is an example of what I’m talking about. Witt names eight criteria for judging studies of the in vitro action of high dilutes . . test tube experiments. Nothing could be more objective than this. Yet I have NEVER read one of you critics EVER mention the Witt review without me first being bringing it to the table, because it sets global standards for judging homeopathic trials.

Global standards are always the enemy of pseudoskeptics like yourself, who in solipsism judge the world by local standards. Knowing what the outcome is you’re seeking, you have to ignore the evidence contrary to it, eventually leaving you with nothing to attack but the reporter.

The Witt review is only one example of the ad rem proofs for homeopathy. Read what some of the world’s top material scientists have to say about it, people like Conte, Chaplin, Roy, Tiller, Montagnier, Bell, Josephson,Benveniste, Demangeat, Ennis none of these scientists were homeopaths prior to their investigations and with the exception of Dr. Conte and Dr. Benveniste, all have been affiliated with universities, all highly respected scientists . . at least they WERE respected until they suddenly started asking questions an coming up with answers that didn’t fit into your box!

Now, instead of projecting your own ignorance of this subject on to others, I suggest you sit down and have a little talk with yourself about what it is you’re really doing, and then come back here and say, “John Benneth, I’m really sorry for having thought this way about you and homeopathy. Please tell me what I can do to help bring this amazing form of medicine to more people.”

Post navigation

3 comments on “Response to my detractors: Why ad hominem?”

… come back here and say, “John Benneth, I’m really sorry for having thought this way about you and homeopathy. Please tell me what I can do to help bring this amazing form of medicine to more people.”
Dear John – makes me think of the saying Even pigs can fly given enough thrust!
Bless the work.
Mary